The Exclusive Claims of Prelacy Stated and 


Refuted 


Rev. B. M. Smith 


DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 


EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


PRELACY, 


STATED AND REFUTED: 


BY THE 


REV. B. M. SMITH. 
Pl 


{ PHILADELPHIA : 
| PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION, 


THE 


EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 
1 


OF 


f 


PRELACY, 


STATED AND REFUTED: 


BY THE 


REV. B. M. SMITH. 
— 


- PHILADELPHIA: 
PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. 


2351 


EXCLUSIVE 


CLAIMS OF PRELACY. 


GawatTians 1: 6, '7.—‘ Unto another Gospel, which is not another; but 
there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. 


We learn from the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the 
Apostles, that certain persons, of the early church, who 
had been Pharisees, and other Jews, before they were pro- 
fessing Christians, taught, that ‘“‘except a man were cir- 
cumcised and kept the law of Moses, he could not be 
saved.” It is generally supposed, that such had been 
actively propagating this error in the Galatian church, and 
are exposed and denounced by the Apostle, in the passage . 
cited above. 

I. The Gospel teaches two fundamental truths respect- 
ing the way of salvation: one, that the vicarious obedience 
and sufferings of Jesus Christ, constitute the meritorious 
ground of man’s justification before God; the other, that 
this provision is applied to our wants, by the Huly Spirit, 
who through the medium of God’s truth, ordinarily, ‘‘ con- 
vinces us of our sin and misery, enlightens our minds in 
the knowledge of Christ, renews our wills, and enables and 
persuades us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us 
in the Gospel.” To the first of these truths, while there 
has been great diversity of opinion on the nature and 
extent, both of the evil and the remedy, there has been, 
among all Christians, a general assent. Though some 
object to the term “ vicarious,” others reject ‘ obedience,” 
and others incorporate something of human merit in the 


Z2 3 293 
Pea44o 


4 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS ; - 


“ ground of justification,” yet the proposition, at least in its 
elementary form, “‘ Man is a sinner and Christ is the only 
Saviour,” has met with the approbation of all, claiming to 
be Christians. The latter truth involves an answer to the 
question, ‘‘ how does man procure the benefits of the pur- 
chased redemption?” and on this topic, in all the changes 
of time, the corruptions and revivals of true religion, its 
trials and triumphs, its defeats and victories, there has been 
one distinctly marked, long fought and yet unended con- 
flict. In the defence of the erroneous opinions held on 
this topic; many have been led, first to question, and then 
deny the fundamental truths of the Christian scheme; and 
thus made shipwreck of the faith and hope of the gospel 
of God. 

On the one hand, it has been held, that we derive all 
spiritual benefits through the direct agency of the Holy 
Spirit ; and that while God has instituted and preserved a 
human and a sacramental instrumentality, for dispensing 
those benefits, he has given to neither, nor to both united, 
any inherent efficacy. Paul and Apollos were but minis- 
ters. The treasure of the Gospel is borne in earthen ves- 
sels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and 
not of men. Christ and his apostles alike, taught to judge 
of ministers by their doctrine, not doctrine by ministers. 
The sacraments are signs of spiritual benefits and seals or 
marks of God’s fayour. This view of the subject, from 
the prominence it gives to the Spirit, and the subordination 
in which it holds, and that scripturally, all instrumentali- 
ties, is called the ReLic1on oF THE SPIRIT. 

On the other hand, from Paul’s day to our own, it has 
been contended, by various sects and in various schemes, 
that to derive spiritual benefit, whether recognizing the 
agency of the Spirit or not, we must approach God by 
some commendatory service, and wait on some specified 
instrumentality, as the sole symbol of his presence, and the 
consecrated channel of his grace. The Jew designated 
circumcision ; the Roman Catholic, usurping the place of 
the Spirit, authoritatively to instruct, and of Christ, say- 
ingly to mediate, pointed to fasts and vigils, the feasts and 
penances, pilgrimages and confessionals of THz Cuuren, 
The fanatic presumed that vociferous shoutings, unearthly 
groans, bodily contortions or fantastic evolutions would 
draw down God’s favour. The formalist trusted in shaved 
heads and unwashen faces, appointed times, prolonged ser- 
vices and misshapen dresses. Strange but true, that ex- 

294 


7 . ca + 
e~s.. 2 i 


™ OF PRELACY. OD 
tremes in result should be identical in principle; the stub- 
born Pharisee, the cowled monk and veiled nun, the medi- 
tative hermit, and the ranting zealot, the bearded Men- 
nonite and the prim formalist, of whatever name, are 
brethren of the one greatest phase of perverted religion, 

e Reticion oF Form. . 

_ Here then, are comprehensively presented the two great 
divisions on the question, “how does man procure the 
benefits of the purchased redemption ?” 

There has, for centuries, existed in the pale of the visible 
Christian church, a class of. men, setting forth a theory on 
this subject, whose statement enables us, at once, to assign 
them a place in the latter division. Through sermons, 
decrees, bulls, pamphlets, volumes of every size, and 
tracts from one to ninety; by popes, councils, cardinals, 
legates, archbishops, bishops, priests, archdeacons, dea- 
cons, and deans, in churches, and parliament halls, at 
the fireside and on the street, in counting rooms and offices, 
and even amid scenes of festivity; in season and out of 
season, from the date of papal supremacy to our day—it 
has been, and is maintained, that there is. no efficient ac- 
cess to God, other than within the pale of the Church, con- 
stituted with a triple order of ministers, bishops, presby- 
ters, and deacons, and which recognises the first, as solely 
authorized to ordain others and govern the house of Gad: 
that there is no channel of intercourse between heaven and 
earth, other than that, marked out by the corruptions of 
the primitive Church, dug amid the darkness of the middle 
ages, and filled with the stream of prelatic grace. Sucha 
system rests on a ForM, vests all rights and privileges of 
the Christian scheme in man; sets aside the call of God 
and the call of his people for the word of a prelate, and 
bases the existence of the church on the canonical per- 
formance of-a rrre, which however scriptural and how- 

_ever important in its place, confers. no character; is decla- 
rative, not impressive of qualification, a form and not the 
substance. This scheme is anoTHER GosPet. To the 
scriptural requisition of faith in Christ, it adds faith in the 
Church, faith in succession, faith in a form, as the Jew 
would have added, faith in. circumcision. It is ANOTHER 
Gospet, for it even usurps the place of the true, and pro- 
claims more virtue resident in canonical ordination, sacra- 
ments and forms of worship, than in the simple preaching 
of the cross of Christ. It is another gospel, and yet 
not another, but a pernicions error, forthe trouble of 


295 — 
Pastge 


6 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


God’s church, for the destruction of peace and charity, for 
the dishonour of Christ, for the grief of the pious, and for 
the joy of the devils. 

Ii. Let none misunderstand the subject of this discus- 
sion, The extravagant pretensions now summarily stated, 
and presently to be more fully set forth, are mot imputed 
to the Episcopal Church as such, either in England or 
America, though they are pretensions recently advanced 
with great zeal, and propagated with an industry worthy of 
a better cause, by clergymen of that church, in both hem- 
ispheres. But till formally and avowedly adopted as ex- 
pository of her principles, the controversy is not with the 
Episcopal Church, but with all whether of Rome, Lambeth, 
Oxford, Raleigh, Burlington, or New York, who proclaim 
this other gospel. Prelacy and Episcopacy are not 
synonymous in usage, whatever they may be by etymo- 
logy. Those who advocate the claims under discussion, 
teach the difference. Say the Oxford Divines, «« We are 
of the church, not the Episcopal Church,—our Bishops 
are not merely am order in her organization, but the prin- 
ciple of her continuance: and to call ourselves Hpis- 
copalians is to imply, that we differ from the mass of dis- 
senters mainly in church Government and form, whereas 
the difference is, that we are here and they are there; we 
in the church, and they out of it.” Presbyterians 
acknowledge a parochial Episcopacy, and as designating 
a form of Government, might be termed Episcopalians. 
“They reject prelacy not Episcopacy, modern not prim- 
itive, diocesan not scriptural Episcopacy.” Nor is the 
controversy with the Episcopal church as now organized 
as @ form of government. It recognizes the prominent 
scriptural principles of a church government. But prela- 
tists claim to possess the mode and the only scriptural 
mode of polity. Nor is this a controversy about forms of 
worship, rites and ceremonies. Episcopalians may use a 
liturgy, read prayers in a surplice, and sermons in a black 
silk robe; fast during Lent, and feast at Christmas, Easter, 
Whitsunday, and Michaelmas; observe as they please 
every saints’-day in the papal calendar; kneel at the Lord’s 
Supper, and make the sign of the cross in baptism; kneel 
in public prayer and stand in public praise; bow at the 
mention of the name of Jesus, and consecrate churches and 
burying-grounds; “regenerate” infants, and confirm adults: 
we have only to say, that if they derive edification from 
such things, we shall not dispute their right to worship as 

296 ” 


ee © * 
se, 


~ 


OF PRELACY. . 7 


they please: to their own master they stand or fall: but 
we find neither scriptural injunction nor commendation for 
them. Nay more, if they see fit, they may follow the Ox- 
ford divines, and indulge to a surfeit; in the “ tolerable iool- 
eries” of papal superstition ;—erect crosses on steeples and 
at cross roads; (it may be,) burn candles of any and all 
sizes, during day-light, on the Azgh altar, or any other; 
wear four-cornered. caps and parti-coloured gowns, and 
mimic the full routine of priestly pantomime, according to 
the pattern shown at St. Peter’s,—and, provided they do 
not insist on our conformity, as was once done, on pain of 
cropped ears, slit noses, expulsion, banishment, confisca- 
tion, torture, fiery death, and cruel mockings, we are in- 
disposed to complain, denounce or dispute. To their own 
master they stand or fall. But, when the prelatist tells us 
and tells the world, there is no salvation out of the pale of 
that church, whose government he advocates, that, for all 
who hear him, the alternative is prelacy or perdition, we 
are constrained to protest, in the name of truth and holi- 
hess, justice and. mercy, heaven and earth, God and man. 
There is a time to be silent and atime tospeak. The 
boldness, pertinacity and frequency with which these pre- 
tensions are put forward, the comparative ignorance on the 
general subject existing among our own churches, in con- 
sequence of our unwillingness to engender controversy, and 
the general desire for information now every where existing 
and increasing, together designate a time to speak. "There 
are other considerations which indicate the propriety and 
necessity of this discussion. 

Ill. 1. These pretensions, if admitted, not only invali- 
date Presbyterian ordination, but they sap the foundation 
of every Christian’s hope. He has been taught to believe 
that “repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord 
Jesus Christ,” constitute the only indispensable condition 


of salvation. But now he must, to be satisfied of his spi- 


ritual safety, know that he has received sacraments at the 
hands of the validly ordained minister, and of this fact, not 
one in one thousand has any means of assurance, other 
than a testimony, as we shall have occasion to show, far 
from being irrefragable. 

2. There is a large class of persons, especially in our 
southern country, who since infidelity has become unfash- 
ionable, are unwilling to be without some kind of religion. 
Presbyterianism and other forms of “ dissent” are deemed 
by such not “fit for gentlemen,” and without any other 

297 


8 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


than a nominal connexion, they call themselyes Episcopa- 
lians. ‘To such, a system presenting so prominently, sal- 
vation on the terms of validly administered sacraments, is 
a most comfortable religion, 

3. To this may be added another similar observation. 
Among plain republicans there has come to pass in these 
latter days a great fondness for marks of distinetion, for 
ceremony, pomp and show, especially in religious worship; 
together with an overweening propensity to do homage to 
rank and title. The whole tendeney of these pretensions 
is the elevation of prelatical power. Witness, among other 
things, the results already secured, as read in the fact, that 
sixty-five protestant clergymen could be found receiving on 
their knees the blessing of a prelate, whose bold assumptions 
they had so cordially sustained.* , Let the mind be once 
spiritually enslaved, and little need be done to effect its 
political thraldom. To the Episcopal church as heretofore 
constituted and governed in this country, we haye not re- 
cognized any peculiar propriety of charging the principles, 
indicated in the celebrated motto of James I, « No bishop, 
no king,” but we have read history to little purpose, if 
there be not fearful indications for our future welfare, in 
the tame submission of our people, in some places, to the 
dictation of papal bishops: and we know not how soon, 
men who claim and, unrebuked, exercise the spiritual 
power vested in prelates and presbyters by the dogmas 
under discussion, will have prepared a people for all the 
extremes, first of ecclesiastical, and then of political tyranny. 
It must be remembered, that people enamoured of pageantry 
and display, in religious worship, will hardly have the pue- 
rile taste thus engendered, satiated with less than the stars 
and trimmings, the trappings and insignia of nobility and 
royalty. As Presbyterians,—a people ever noted for op- 
position to all arbitrary rule,—it is our duty to oppose the 
beginnings of this evil. - 

4, There has evidently been. latterly manifested in low 
churchmen, a tendency to revive and use the language and, 
hold a bearing toward non-Episcopal churches, which was 
many years ago deemed the peculiar province of high 
churchmen. Were there time for it, it could easily be 
shown, that the fathers of the English church recognized 
other protestant communions and their clergy as occupy- 
ing an equal position with their own. When, some years 


_* This occurred in New York, before Bishop Onderdonk, previously to 
his a for immorality. Editor of Board of Publication. 


OF PRELACY. 9 


since, a few ultra spirits in ‘New York, North Carolina and 
other places, began to speak great swelling words of vanity 
about “dissenters,” “thé church,” ‘uncovenanted mer- 
cies,” “valid ordination,” ‘episcopal grace,” it was 
thought by many that the best way to treat such men, 
would be the pursuit of a course, somewhat similar to that, 
with which we would indicate our contempt for the pre- 
tensions of half a score of Chinese mandarins, who might 
appear among us, claiming to be the only gentlemen in the 
land. But now, where is the Bishop of the Episcopal 
church who will admit to ministerial communion, ministers 
of other churches ; and yet would he deny the privilege to 

~Roman priests? What Episcopal minister will dare ac- 
‘knowledge our administration of baptism to be more valid 
than that of physicians, male or female? We do not know 
that our ordination was ever acknowledged as valid in the 
United States, but it has been in England, in times past, 
yet what Episcopal bishop will now acknowledge it? We 
learn, to-day, from the Southern Churchman, that twenty- 
five years ago, children in Episcopal families were early 
taught the distinction between “going to church” and 
“ going to meeting.” We should be obliged to the writer 
for an elucidation of the facts, if it be othér than a refusal 
to recognize, as authorized worship, that existing in non- 
Episcopal communions. And he intimates that such a 
training should be renewed ; that after all Puseyism and 
genuine liturgical Episcopacy are very near of kin. Some 
have surmised as much before. 

5. Public sentiment, in many parts of our country, has 
already received such impressions, that the progress of 
their high claims, must, if unrebuked, be very rapid. By 
some means, Episcopacy has, by many, been considered a 
very genteel religion. In our army and navy it is said, 
and yet uncontradicted, that the large majority of chaplains 
are Episcopalians. Our polite literature, so called, and 
some of the fine arts have contributed to the popularity of 
this church. Descriptions and embellishments in tales, 
annuals and magazines, representing baptisms, marriages, 
death beds, and burials, very generally set them forth in 
connexion with such symbols of Episcopacy, as clergymen 
in vestments, altars, and prayer books. When religious 
speech is introduced, we read of “the venerable liturgy,” 
“the church,” ‘the beautiful and impressive burial ser- 
vice,” “dignified bishop,” and the like. We do not object 
to all this, in itself considered. We can and do rejoice if 

299 


©. 
10 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


the gospel be preached unto any and received by any, 
through other churches, if they reject us; but the class of 
persons who are influenced by these things, are those who, 
for obvious reasons, may be led, more readily to acquiesce, 
without examination, in a scheme of religion, which rests 
on @ form, and rejoices more in regularity and canonical 
order, than in holiness of heart and life, and conformity to 
God’s law. 

We then repeat, that for such considerations we deem it 
time to speak out. Were the matters at issue mere ques- 
tions about words, and did they only occasion a controversy 
in the Episcopal church, it would be alike needless and 
uncourteous for us to meddle. But the signs of the times 
evidently indicate the revival of the great conflict of christ- 
endom, with renewed energy. Perhaps it is** the last 
time.” The contest may be long. Other than spiritual 
weapons may be used, Our mountain-caves, and recesses, 
may serve other purposes than amusement and refreshment 
to the curious or weary traveller. Like those of Scotland, 
they may become consecrated as the refuges of God’s peo- 
ple, to be hallowed by their midnight worship, and stained . 
with their blood. But the victory is sure. ‘ Truth crush- 
ed to earth, will rise again; the eternal years of God are 
hers.” 

The controversy is not between Episcopalians and Pres- 
byterians, but between truth and error: the devices of man 
and the simple faith and simple order of the gospel of God. 
To be silent longer on such a subject, would be treason to 
the protestant cause ;—treason to our own church, mainly 
assailed; treason to Christ’s cross, crown, covenant and 
kingdom, traduced, despised and set at naught, for the 
claims of usurpers; treason to the memory of martyred 
thousands in England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, France, » 
Switzerland, and Holland, who took joyfully the spoiling 
of their goods, and surrendered home and life itself, in a 
cause, in whose defence, we jeopard but a little bubble of 
reputation, 

IV. To show that we bring no railing accusation, it may 
be important to present more “fully the exclusive pretensions 
of prelacy, although to some, the summary already given 
might suffice. Out of a mass, whose exposition would oc- 
cupy more hours than we have minutes to spare, we wil 
select and, as far as possible, in the words of these ecclesi- 
astical Ishmaelites themselves, present a succinct statement . 
of their claims. They say, that there is an order of clergy 

300 


OF PRELACY. 11 


superior to presbyters, whom they call bishops, who are the 
lineal successors of the apostles and with whom are depos- 
ited all the treasures of ministerial order and succession ; 
that Episcopal ordination enters into the essence of a church : 
that the order of the gospel is as important as its doctrine, 
and that this order is alone Episcopal. Bishop Seabury 
tells us, «In the church of Christ we have the govern- 
ments, faith, sacraments, worship, and ministry ;—out of 
it, we are sure of none of these things.” To this we ac- 
cord, but bishop Seabury says further, “ Christ has bwt one 
church,’ and that being the Episcopal, there is no hope out 
of it. Bishop Meade has so well described these claims, 
that we use his language, (yet happy in the conviction that 
he does not sympathize in the sentiments he records,) «To 
dispense with Episcopal ordination is not a breach of order 
merely,” (so we suppose bishop M. regards it,) *« but a sur- 
render of THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD, and the attempt to 
institute any other form of ordination, or to seek commu- 
nion with Christ, through any non-Episcopal’ association, 
is to be regarded, not as a schism merely, but as an im- 
possibility.” 'This necessity for Episcopal ordination is 
based on the claim, “that bishops and they only have re- 
ceived from their predecessors and they from theirs, back 
to the apostles, the gift of the Holy Ghost, thus preserved 
in the world and transmitted ; and this gift empowers them 
to receive into the church and exclude from it, with the 
assurance, that what they do is ratified in heaven. 

*« A doctrinal catechism of the church of England,” re- 
cently published in London, contains, among other things, 
the following precious “ milk for babes,” 

«Q. Are not dissenting teachers ministers of the gospel? 
A. No; they have never been called after the manner of 
Aaron.” [And who have been ?] 

“«Q. Who appoints dissenting teachers? A. They either 
wickedly appoint each .other, or are not appointed at all; 
and so in either case their assuming the office is very 
wicked. : 

*«Q. But are not dissenting teachers thought to be very 
good men?” [Such e. g. as Baxter, Doddridge, Watts, 
Payson, Alleine, Bunyan, and Owen.] “A. They are of- 
ten thought to. be such, and so were Korah, Dathan, and 
Abiram, till God showed them to be very wicked. 

««@. But may we not hear them preach? A. No; for 
God says, ‘ Depart from the tents of these wicked men.’ ” 

2A 301 


12 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


Happy children, with such instruction! Verily may ye 
hope to be wiser than your teachers ! ay 
It is not surprising then, that all non-Episcopal churches 
and ministers, though constituting a large majority of Pro- 
testant Christendom, (in the United States the ministers as 
14 to 1 and members as 34 to 1,) are branded as -“ pre- 
tended ministers,’ ‘‘sectaries,” * meetingers,” “ schisma- 
tics,” ‘dissenting mountebanks,” ‘ministers of hell.” 
Quite consistent to tell us, “* wilful opposition to Episcopacy 
is rebellion against God, and must therefore separate from 
his presence :” and “they who reject this dispensation, re- 
ject themselves from God and his salvation.” Quite legit- 
imate is the inference that a clergyman of the church of 
England may be fresh from a ball, a card party, a mistress, 
or a race-field, and yet, not the holiest dissenting divine, 
possesses such clerical power as this abandoned scion of 
prelatical generation.* , 

Such then is more fully a specimen of pretensions which 
we pronounce another gospel. Were there time it were 
easy to refute each of the extravagant and absurd positions 
here presented, by both reason, common sense and scrip- 
ture. But we prefer seeking the basis of them all and if 
this be found unsupported by scripture, the whole fall 
together. 

V. If this air-built fabric can be said to have any basis, 
it is contained in these two propositions. 1, There was 
instituted by Christ an order of clergy superior to presby- 
ters, called, first, apostles, then bishops, to whom alone was 
committed the power to ordain others. 

2. That there has existed a lineal, unbroken succession, 
from the apostles down to the present bishops of Eplerapal 
churches. 

It is obvious, that if the first proposition cannot be sus- 

tained, the latter necessarily fails. We feel prepared to 
show that the first cannot be sustained, and although, 
therefore, the full discussion of the second is not necessary 
to our argument, yet since the subject has been latterly 
much canvassed, we offer a few summary observations, 
__ 1, Establishing the fact of a personal prelatical succes- 
sion, establishes ‘that of Presbyterian succession ; for the 
prelate was first a presbyter: or if this be questioned, then, 
since the greater includes the less, the prelate, as such, 
was presbyter. To us, either solution is indifferent, for we 
make no-distinction of order. 


* See note at the close. 
302 


OF PRELACY. 13 


2. Supposing every link’ in the chain of succession 
clearly proved, so far as uninspired testimony can do it, it 
must yet be shown by scripture, that the first link existed, 
i. e. that prelacy was divinely instituted. If that can be 
done, however gratifying a lineal succession might be, it 
would not be indispensable to prove it, to secure our ready 
submission toa prelate holding apostolic doctrine. If that 
cannot be done, the most irrefragable human testimony to 
a lineal succession, only proves succession to that order, 
which was divinely constituted, by whatever name known, 

-3. Prelatists. triumphantly tell us, the succession was 
uninterrupted from the earliest ages to the 16th century. 
But the “‘ earliest ages” do not reach to the apostles’ times 
by at least a century. Then, say they, that early and 
undisputed existence, at the time, can only be. accounted 
for, on the supposition of a divine authority. Now we are 
prepared, were there time, to show that the earliest exist- 
ence of prelacy can otherwise be fully accounted for, and 
that the claims of prelacy were disputed in the earliest 
times of its existence. But if this famous and vaunted 
argument proves any thing, it proves too much, as all 
efforts to reason facts into existence must do. The Roman- 
ists undertake to sustain their system in the same way. 
Says the prelatist, there are bishops now, there were others 
to ordain them, and so back to the earliest age. What 
existed a. D. 300-must have existed a. p. 250 and a. D. 
150 anda. p. 50, and so be apostolic. Says the Roman- 
ist, there are popes and cardinals and monks and nuns 
now, and these we trace to the earliest age, and if they 
existed then, they must have existed fifty and fifty and fifty 
years before, and so they are stretched to apostolic.days. 

But all this is in vain. No successful effort has yet 
been made to fasten the first link, nor the second, nor the 
third. We challenge the production of reliable evidence 
to the existence of a prelate, or the practice of more than 
one’ ordination, for the same person, within the-first two 
centuries. 

4, Equally untenable is the celebrated position, that the 
proof adduced to sustain a lineal succession of prelates, is 
identical in kind and as strong in degree, as that on which 
we rest the authority of the scriptures. On this, it may 
be observed, (1.) The evidence of early writers for the 
authority of scripture, is their testimony to the existence, 
in their age, of the books of the New Testament. Their 
inspiration is proved by independent evidences. This is 

2 303 


14 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


testimony to one set of facts of one date. Tt is confirmed 
by that of ancient translations of the New Testament, and 
by the existence of manuscripts, which though not very 
old, yet being of various countries, bin families,) are inde- 
pendent witnesses ; and the continued reception of the same 
books, in succeeding ages, constitutes an accumulating tes- 
timony to this set of facts of one ‘date. (2.) But accord- 
ing to prelatical principles, to establish the valid ordination 
of a prelate, we must have testimony of his valid baptism 
and valid ordination to the office of a presbyter. To make 
out each point, we must be able to prove that each person, 
participating in his baptism and ordinations, had received 
the requisite authority. ‘This requires proof again for the 
third set introduced, and so on back. We observe here, 
that as the same persons who ordain may not have bap- 
tized the candidate or ordained him presbyter, and as three 
are required to unite in ordination, every remove back, 
multiplies the number of valid baptisms and ordinations to 
be established. We leave to those fond of “endless gene- 
alogies” the arithmetical calculations involved. Even im- 
agination grows weary in computing probabilities of inva- 
lidity ; fact is displaced by chance, and each prelatical 
generation involves us deeper and more hopelessly in the 
intricacies of this ecclesiastical labyrinth. For the au- 
thority of scripture, the testimony has accumulated with 
every successive generation, while for that of prelatical suc- 
cession, its strength is inversely as the square of the dis- 
tance of any given prelate, counting by generations, from 
the apostolical age. 

Says Chillingworth, (of the English church,) «It is not 
improbable that among the many millions, which make up 
the Roman hierarchy,” and we may say the same of that 
of the Episcopal church— There are not twenty true.” 
A recent writer in the London Christian Observer, truly 
remarks, “ To trace this succession according to prelatical 
views, will drive one either to Rome or infidelity.” 

5. Difficulties in this scheme thicken as we advance, 
It has been denied that the church of England derived 
orders from the Roman Catholic church. ‘The Anglican 
church was ever independent,” we are told, but it cannot 
be denied, that the fathers of the English church were 
ordained by men, who had lived and died in connection 
with Rome, whatever may have been their claims to an 
ecclesiastical genealogy, independent of the papal. Till 
Henry VIII. and his parliament threw off the Roman yoke, 

304 


OF PRELACY. 15 


England was, as history shows, from the entrance of the 
first papal legate into London, under papal dominion. It 
can be proved by a list of authors, six inches long, that the 
reformation was regarded by those who effected it, and 
others, as a separation. But prelatists now say, “the Ro- 
man, Catholic is a church of Christ, her orders are valid ;” 
she is hailed as a sister or mother. Here then is separa- 
tion from a.church of Christ, which prelatists say, ‘‘ sepa- 
rates from Christ himself.” We Presbyterians need not 
complain of being unchurched by men who thus unchurch 
their own ecclesiastical ancestry. 

In this connexion it is well to observe, that the separa- 
tion was effected by act of Parliament, that the ordination 
of bishops was confirmed by the same, the headship of the 
church placed in the crown, by the same; and that after 
all that is said about validity, succession in the English 
church, is succession to authority, whose prime source 
resides in a ea prince or princess, as the case may 
be. 

6. Had we time, we would enlarge on some awkward 
matters touching the succession in the American church. 
There was a considerable discussion, not to say contro- 
yersy, in the “unity” church, (of which the records are 
in existence,) thirty-two years ago, touching an ordination 
of Griswold and Hobart, (yes, Hoparr!!) Some words of 
«the book” were omitted fo be « said or sung,” in the pro- 
cess of ordination, and some said the act was invalid and 
some said not. Poor Presbyterians dare not discuss such 
‘high matters ;” so we pass on. There was another case, 
of doubts about a certain bishop’s baptism. 

Let it ever be remembered too, that we owe the inestima- 
ble privilege of having ever seen a bishop of the Protestant 
Episcopal church in the United States to the English govern- 
ment. It is notorious, that the first bishops in this country 
received their ordination from English bishops, who could 
not legally perform the service, without asking and obtain- 
ing permission of the English government to do so. 

7. Led by such and similar difficulties, to reject the 
theory of a prelatical succession, it is not to be inferred, 
that we reject a succession. 

A successor to another, is one who occupies his office 
and performs its duties. In their extraordinary duties, 
such as implied miraculous gifts, and such as pertained to 
the organization of the church under the Christian dispen- 
sation, the apostles could have no successors, for such gifts 

2a2 305 


16 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


have been withdrawn and such duties are no longer incum- 
bent on any. But those now are their successors, in their 
ordinary duties, who preach, administer sacraments and 
ordain. Such power, presbyters claim: and, as we hope 
to prove, in the proper place, on scriptural grounds. 
Here we are concerned to show, that they are connected 
by successive ordinations with the apostles. 

Ordination is not a sacrament. It is neither a sign nor 
a seal of imparted grace. It is not then, necessary, in 
tracing a succession, to find the minute conformity to ca- 
nonical requisitions, the want of which, on prelatical prin- 
ciples, perplexes their investigations. We can satisfac- 
torily show, that up to the period of the reformation, our 
ministers have been set apart by ministers, and that the 
reformers to whom we trace this succession, had also been 
set apart. It is admitted on all sides, that the orders of the 
Roman Catholic church were valid. Her presbyters be- 
came Protestants and thus Presbyterian ordination, (and 
we ask for no more,) has been transmitted, But as we 
shall show, ordination is.a declarative act. It is setting 
apart men who profess to have received a call from God. 
Now, if in extraordinary cases, men thus professing, and 
by their doctrine, (which is the scriptural criterion accord- 
ing to Paul and John, after Christ’s example,) evincing the 
truth of such professions, challenge our confidence, we 
could not withhold it. Such is our confidence in the doc- 
trinal succession, that we have no more doubt that the 
reformers were providentially called to reform, than that 
the apostles were miraculously called to organize, the 
church. If any ask, who in such cases are to judge? We 
answer, the people of God, using his word as a guide; and 
we are prepared to show, that any other theory, involves 
either a belief that ordination imparts grace, or that infalli- 
bility is lodged somewhere on earth. But with these views 
we still maintain, that in ordinary cases, the ministry is 
continued by ministers, and that the scriptural form for ex- 
pressing a public recognition of existing qualifications is 
important. In the cases supposed, it would be competent 
to those recognizing such claims, to use such a form of 
recognition, since God’s providence would then appear to 
point out extraordinary methods, as he used an extraordi- 
nary method, by miraculous intervention, in conferring the 
Holy Ghost on Paul, by the hands of a disciple, and not 
by those of the apostles. 

VI. We proceed to discuss the main proposition, in op- 

306 


OF PRELACY. 17 


position to which, we say,—There was but one divinely 
constituted order of the Christian ministry, and to that was 
committed by Christ, all the rights and privileges neces- 
sary to the proper government and perpetuation of the 
church. 

1. Our Saviour, during his personal ministry, appointed 
but one order. 

(1.) He chose twelve disciples; Matt. x. These he sent 
forth, and hence their name apostles, from the Greek, 
apostolos. But it is said of the seventy, whom he ap- 
pointed, after recounting (Luke ix.) the appointment of the 
twelve, ‘“‘he appointed other seventy also whom he sent 
forth,” apesteilen, (Luke x. 1.) the same Greek word, as 
in Matt. x.5. Now although the word apostle was after- 
wards appropriated to denote the twelve, in a pre-eminent 
sense, here the seyenty might be called apostles. Indeed, 
after this period, the apostles are sometimes called disci- 
ples. They do not appear then to have differed in name. 
Nor did the Saviour indicate any difference, in the tenor 
of their commissions, touching any duties, pertaining to a 
permanent ministry. Both preached, and in John iv. 2. it 
is said the “disciples baptized” and there is nothing re- 
stricting the application of the word to apostles. Hooker 
says of the seventy, «« Their commission to preach and bap- 
tize was the same which the apostles had.” Our Saviour 
expressly forbade all distinctions of rank among his fol- 
lowers. He referred them to the ‘rulers of the Gentiles 
who exercised lordship over them-and added, but it shall 
not be so among you.” 

(2.) The commission to preach and baptize was renewed 
when he was about ascending to heaven, and a promise 
added, “Lo! I am with you always to the end of the 
world.” By this, He intimated the perpetuity of the min- 
istry. Prelatists appropriate this promise to their order. 
But it was made to those who were authorized to “ preach 
and baptize.” In neither commission, do we find one word 
about ordination or a superior order. In John xx. 22, we 
have, as supposed, another part of this commission, But 
these words were not spoken at the same time, for it ap- 
| pears “ Thomas was not with them,” and the events con- 
nected, preceded the ascension. The words here recorded 
are, ** he breathed on them and saith unto them receive ye 
the Holy Ghost, whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted, 
&c.” We have not time to settle accurately the meaning 
of this passage: but may observe; (1.) “It was not the 

PA 307 


18 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


promised effusion of the Spirit, for Jesus was not yet glori 
fied.” John vii. 39, (2.) In any sense these words indi- 
cate the gift of the same power to disciples as apostles, 
some of the latter having been present. (3.) These and 
the words Matt. xvii. 18, evidently indicate that miracu- 
lous endowment of inspired men, which enabled them 
authoritatively to declare the truth. (4.) And was prob- 
ably spoken somewhat prophetically of the promise, yet to 
be fulfilled, Acts i. 8. 

2. The history and writings of the apostles, connected 
with the organization of the Christian church, evince the 
existence of only one order of the ministry. 

(1.) Before proceeding to sustain this division of the 
general proposition, by direct proofs, it is proper to discuss 
the nature of the apostolic office, with reference to the oft- 
repeated assertion, “The apostles only might ordain,” 
which is tantamount to another form of boldness, «this 
power to ordain was peculiar to their office and transmitted 
to their successors,” 

We have already seen the origin of their name. They 
were sent forth during our Saviour’s life, in common with 
other disciples: now they were sent forth by a special com- 
mission to them. After speaking of his sufferings and re- 
surrection Jesus says, ‘‘ Ye are witnesses of these things.” 
—See Luke xxiv. 48; in Acts i. 8, he repeats these words 
substantially, restricting the address to “ the apostles whom 
he had chosen.” Peter confirms this view by telling us it 
was necessary that Judas’ office should be supplied by one 
‘“¢to be a witness with us,” ii. 22. Paul was ‘chosen of 
God” xxii. 14, 15, «to know his will and to see that just 
one, and to be a witness unto all men:” and defends his 
claim to the apostleship ¢ Cor. ix. 1, 2.) by, “ Have I not 
seen the Lord Jesus?” It is true that he was seen of five 
hundred, but these were specially selected as witnesses, 
confirming by signs and wonders, what they said and 
taught. Here then was an extraordinary office, clearly 
marked, to which none can now succeed, for the duties 
cannot now be performed: to which none did ever succeed, 
for those who performed it, were “‘chosen of God,” by 
special revelation. To perform this office, the apostles 
were clothed with miraculous powers, (Heb. ii. 4;) among 
others, was that of communicating the Holy Ghost.—<Acts 
ix. 17. It is true Ananias laid his hands on Paul, and 
announced that he was sent, that “he might receive his 
sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost.” But it is evi« 

308 


OF PRELACY. 19 


dent that he acted under a special, and not as the apostles, 
under a general commission. Whether, however, the gift 
was restricted to the apostles or not, it was a peculiarity of 
inspired men, and not an office to be transmitted, or a quali- 
fication pertaining to the ordinary and permanent ministry. 
There is no evidence that the apostles conferred the Holy 
Ghost, as part of their ordaining act, and if they did, no 
others than inspired men could or can-do so. The form 
of ordering priests, and that ‘of ordaining bishops” has, 
however, put into the mouth of the presiding bishop the 
words, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” language which is 
either unmeaning or presumptuous, unless they who use it 
can show the “ signs of apostles.” 

The apostles were also invested, by inspiration, with 
authority to establish church polity, and superintend the 
churches, in all matters needing inspired direction, the 
scriptures being then incomplete, while in other matters, 
they claimed no exclusive jurisdiction, and clearly recog- 
nized the authority of the ordinary ministers. With these 
too, they shared in the ordinary duties of preaching, dis- 
pensing sacraments, and ordaining. But not one word can 
be found, to show, that they alone were authorized to or- 
dain. ‘The word apostle is sometimes used in its literal 
signification, one sent, a messenger, or missionary. Thus 
of Epaphroditus, Phil. 11. 25, and of Titus and others, 2 
Cor. viii. 23. So we understand Barnabas and Paul, who 
are called apostles, Acts xiv. 14, were the messengers or 
missionaries, in allusion to their special mission recorded; 
Acts xiii, 1—3. Barnabas is never afterwards, though 
often mentioned, called an apostle. Paul’s claims rest on 
other grounds. Indeed such was the importance of the 
apostolic office, that we have special accounts of the call of 
Paul and Matthias, and the former frequently urges the 

_ evidence of his apostleship. The mere use of a title, which 
may mean nothing more than messenger or missionary, 
for some. special purpose, cannot, under such circum- 
stances, justify the interpretation sometimes claimed for 
the case of Barnabas. As to certain, who are said to be 
apostles, because we read they ‘“‘ were of note among the 
apostles,” it is enough to observe that a man may be “ of 
note” among kings, or judges, or senators, without being 
therefore a king, judge or senator. 

(2.) Our proposition is sustained by considering the 
names or titles of church officers, mentioned in the Acts 
and Epistles. 

309 


20 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


(2.) One of these, deacon, deserves a special notice, 
giving name as it does, to the ‘third order” of the prelatic 
scheme. ‘The appointment of deacons is recorded, Acts 
vi. 3—7, from which it appears, they were chosen and set 
over a certain business, that the apostles might give them- 
selves to prayer and the ministry of the word. Now this 
“ business” is called ‘* serving tables ;” and comparing the 
Greek word, translated “ tables” with that for ** exchanger,” 
(Matt. xxv. 27,) and for “bank,” (Luke xix, 23) this 
phrase means, attending to pecuniary concerns. This 
view is sustained by the preceding context. Paul deseribes 
the qualifications of a deacon, (1 Tim. iii. 8—13,) but does 
not mention one, from which we might infer that he was a 
spiritual officer. Stephen, ‘one of the seven,” confounded 
his accusers in argument, and Philip, another of ‘the 
seven,” afterwards became an Evangelist. But, in the 
face of the account above given, these cases cannot be 
cited to prove, that either was then engaged in the peculiar 
duties of the office of deacon. We dismiss the subject with 
these remarks, sufficient to show, that this title has no 
claim, in its restricted use, to denote a spiritual officer. 

(5.) The titles of spiritual officers, besides apostle, were 
minister, evangelist, prophet, pastor, teacher, preacher, 
steward, ambassador, bishop and presbyter. We also read 
of «helps and governments,” general terms, rather than 
titles, indicative of officers known under their appropriate 
titles, ott 
Of these, ‘‘ minister” is very general, and is the transla- 
tion of the word elsewhere rendered deacon. It means a 
servant. ‘The restricted sense in which it is applied to dea- 
con, strengthens the view already given, that the word 
denotes a “servant of the church,” not an order of her 
spiritual officers. In a general sense, “ minister” was ap- 
plied indiscriminately to any, whether apostles, presbyters, 
prophets, or others. 

(c.) The remaining titles, except bishop and presbyter, 
are, by general consent, acknowledged to be merely indica- 
tive of the various ministerial offices, suggested by the 
usual meaning of the words used. No one pretends that 
they distinguish the order or rank of such officers. 

(d.) Presbyter (or elder,) presbuteros, literally means 
an old man. Such, in patriarchal governments, were 
rulers, by virtue of age. Hence the word was adopted 
to denote rulers generally, and was so used by the Jews. 
It does not express the functions of the office, but the quali- 

310 


OF PRELACY. 21 


fications of the officer, real or supposed, incidental or ac- 
quired, the authority and power, from which the functions 
flow. It exactly answers to the Latin, senator, and the 

_ English, alderman, and signifies the rank or order of the 
officer. . 


*(e.) Bishop, (episkopos,) literally means overseer, a term 
indicating the duties of the office. These duties were the 
instruction and government of the peopleand not of ministers. 
Hence no rank or order of a superior character could per- 
tain to the bishop, by virtue of his relative position. It is 
used five times, (Acts xx. 28. Phil. i 1. 1 Tim. ii. 1. 
Titus ii. 7. 1-Peter ii. 25,) in neither of which is there the 
slightest indication of superiority to other officers, except 1 
Pet. n. 25, where it is applied to Christ. As a title, it may 
rank with pastor, teacher, and others indicative of the func- 
tions of the officer and not the order. 

“These titles then, of themselves, indicate no distinction 
of order, as they are, by prelatists, now employed to imdi- 
cate. On the contrary, presbyter is the only title, expres- 
sive of rank or order, by its derivation, while bishop, hke 
other titles mentioned, is, by derivation, expressive of the 
duties of the officer. The history of the apostolic church 
corroborates this view. Presbyter is the only title applied 
to those who were ordained. We read of ordaining pres- 
byters, (or elders,} but never of ordaining bishops, pastors 
or ministers. 

(-) The existence of only one order is established as a 
fact, by the application of the title indicative of order, and 
that indicative of the duties of office, to the same person. 
Paul, (Acts xx. 17,) calls the “elders (presbyters) of the 
church” and, in ver. 28, addresses them as “ overseers,” or 
bishops. In Titus, (i. 5—7,) he directs Titus “to ordain 
elders,” acne and proceeds to give their character 
by saying, “fora bishop,” &c. The Syriac translator of 
the New Testament, before a. p. 150, renders the Greek 
word for bishop (Titus i. 7. Phil. i. 1,) by a word i 
presbyter, and that for “office of a bishop” (1 Tim. iii. 1,) 
by “office of a presbyter,” proving, as Burnet observes, 
that these terms were used promiscuously by writers of the 
‘first two centuries. Bishop Marsh alluding to the Syriac 
translator, says, “‘ he understood the original [Greek] and 
made the proper distinction between the language of the 
primitive and that of the hierarchal church.” We prefer 
the language of the primitive. This application of these 
terms, presbyter and bishop, is illustrated by our use cf the 

311 


22 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


terms, magistrate and justice of the peace, when applied to 
the same person, or of senator and legislator; indicating 
the rank of the officer, by one, and the duties by the other. 
So clearly do these views establish the parity of bishop and 
presbyter, that prelatists have been forced to acknowledge, 
in the words of Dr. Onderdonk, that “all we read in the 
New Testament concerning bishops is to be understood of 
that middle grade,” (i. e. presbyters.) 

(g.) The existence of only one order, and that the order 
of presbyters is deducible from the fact, that the apostles 
(r Pet. v. 1. 2 John 1. 3 John 1.) call themselves presbyters. 

n respect of their extraordinary duties, as already seen, 
they were apostles, sent forth on a special mission, but as 
part of an ordinary ministry, they were presbyters.. No 
apostle ever calls himself bishop, Peter (Acts i, 20 ») calls 
the apostolic office a bishopric or ‘ office of a bishop.” By 
reference to the passage quoted, (Psa. cix. 8,) we find the 
word so translated, to be one of extensive application, de- 
noting any office whatever. But in the restricted sense, 
here ‘allowed, the passage in Acts i, 20, supposing it to 
prove the identity of the apostolic and episcopal offices, 
which it does not, would not establish a separate order for 
either, nor in the least affect the argument, already made, 
for presbyterial order, 

Presbyter, then, is the only title expressive of order, by 
its derivation. It is the only title applied to those who 
were ordained. Presbyters were bishops and bishops no 
more than presbyters. There is and can be but one order, 
deduced from examining the ministerial titles occurring in 
the Acts and Epistles. "But we are told, this is all verbal 
sophistry: we ‘seek in scripture for the sacred offices, ~ 
independently of the namés given them.” And then is 
repeated the assertion, that the apostles appointed certain 
persons their successors, who alone could ordain, and these 
persons were called,—some say, apostles, some bishops, 
and some designate their office as “the episcopal office :” 
but all unite, in denying ordaining ‘power to presbyters and 
restricting it to this “‘ other order.” 

(3.) We then proceed to show that, presbyters perform- 
ed all the offices, performed by apostles, those excepted, 
which involved the possession of supernatural powers. It 
being conceded that presbyters preached and dispensed 
sacraments, it remains for us to show that they governed 
the church and ordained. 

(a.) That they were governors of the church is proved 

312 


OF PRELACY. 23 


by 1 Tim. v.17. “Let the elders (presbyters) that rule 
well, &c.” . By Paul (Acts xx. 28,) and Peter (1 Pet. v. 
2,) they are exhorted “to feed the flock.” “Feed” is the 
translation of a Greek word, derived from pastoral life, 
denoting, in that primary use the whole duty of a shepherd, 
both governing and feeding the flock. That it here has 
the similar meaning of governing and instructing the peo- 
ple, is evident, because in both addresses, the presbyters 
are reminded of their duty as overseers or inspectors, 
Pastor is a name derived from a similar source, with a 
similar allusion, and expressive of the duty of governing ; 
and pastors are distinguished from apostles in the enumera- 
tion of officers, Eph. iv. 11, given “for the perfecting of 
the saints,” 

In Acts xv. 23. presbyters are expressly associated with the 
apostles in the most important act of government recorded 
in the history of the primitive church. 

(6.) Presbyters ordained. The scriptural argument is 
pointed and brief. . Before presenting it, however, we offer 
a few remarks on the general subject. 

(1.) Ordination is not a sacrament. ‘There is, then, no 
consistency in denying to presbyters, who may dispense 
sacraments, the power to perform a rite. The deep-seated 
impression that ordination conveys grace, or, in some 
mysterious manner, confers some kind of virtue, or cha- 
racter, has been derived from the papal view of its sacra- 
mental nature, and the papal faith in the intrinsic efficacy 
of sacraments. 

(2.) Ordination is then, either an act of government or 
it pertains to the office of preaching, inasmuch as the 
ordaining person is, in the act of ordination, engaged in 
fulfilling the great commission. In either case, authority 
to ordain devolves on presbyters. oa 

(3.) To the same conclusion we are led, by examining 
the meaning of the word “ordain,” and the form of ordi- 
nation, ‘Ordain” occurs five times in an ecclesiastical 
sense, and in each instance, represents a different Greek 
word, meaning literally, (Mark iii. 14,) ‘to make,” (Acts 
i. 22,) to be,” (Acts xiv. 23,) “to extend the hands,” (or 
to elect,) (1 Tim. ii. 7,) “to place,” (Titus i. 7,) “to ap- 
point,” neither of which can be tortured into any thing 
more significant, than “to set apart” or “appoint” or 
«place in office.” Now were this service a rite, not to 
say a sacrament, we would, from scripture usage, expect 

2B 313 


24 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


to find some word uniformly used, appropriate and ex- 
pressive, be 

In neither of these cases is the form of ordination alluded 
to, and it cannot be proved that the Saviour used any form 
(unless ‘“‘ breathing on them” be so construed,) in ordain- 
ing the apostles, and we might here raise a question, on the 
divine authority for any uniform mode of ordination, not 
easily settled. But since, in at least one case, “laying on 
hands” seems to be clearly recognized as the form, we pro- 
ceed to discuss its meaning. Let it be remembered, that 
prelatists claim to “impress character” in ordination, _We 
consider the “ form” scriptural, and always worthy of ob- 
servance. ‘‘ Laying on hands” was used in pronouncing 
benedictions, conferring the miraculous gifts of the Holy 
Spirit, performing miraculous cures, and investing men 
with office. It is, of course, with the latter alone we are 
concerned, since prelatists do not yet assume to impart 
miraculous gifts or work miraculous cures. In Num. 
xxvii. 15238, we learn that God specially designated 
Joshua as the successor of Moses, because “the Spirit” 
was in him, and then adds, “and lay thy hand upon him.” 
In Acts vi. 2—6, the brethren chose seven men * full of 
the Holy Ghost and wisdom” and ‘set them before the 
apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.” In 
both these cases, the qualification for office clearly existed, 
before the form of investiture was used. The form then 
could not be used to communicate mysteriously, what 
already existed, but was a public recognition, declarative 
not impressive of authority already conferred by God. 
We might examine the connexion of this, with the other 
uses of this form, showing that in all, the possession of 
something is declared. In other uses, inspired men not 
only declared but communicated. In ordination, uninspir- 
ed men can only declare their belief, that the person or- 
dained, possesses what he professes, and what God imparts, 
in the ordinary operation of his Spirit, through the ordinary 
means, as qualifications for the ministry. 

Paul sustains this view, by describing to Titus the quali- 
fications necessary for those who might fill the office of 
presbyter; and by admonishing Timothy, not to “lay 
hands suddenly on any man,” he intimates, that he must 
find them first possessed of the proper character and not 
expect to impart it. Indeed, with the scriptures before us, 
we cannot believe otherwise, than that both character or 
fitness for the office, and authority, are the call of God; 

314 


OF PRELACY. 25 


providentially but no less really made, than was that of 
Aaron. The work of man is merely declarative. Is it 
said, we are hable to err, to be deceived? So we are on 
any scheme; more so, when the ordaining power is vested 
in one man, removed perhaps, far from a candidate whom 
he has never seen till he comes for orders, than when it 
rests with several, some personally and intimately ac- 
quainted with him. Since nothing is imparted by “the 
laying on of hands” nor so implied in the use of the word, 
expressive of ordination, we see no reason, why those 
trained to the ministry may not admit others to their own 
rank and office. But whatever confidence we may have 
in the deductions of our reason, we rely ultimately on 
scripture and that only. In 1 Tim. iv. 14, the apostle 
says, “* Neglect not the gift which is in thee”—or your 
gift—« which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying 
on of the hands of the presbytery.” Apart from all con- 
troversy, here is a clear case of presbyterian ordination. 
Could but one such case be found for prelacy, or were the 
word bishop here instead of presbytery, with what indigna- 
tion, would our expression of the slightest doubt be received, 
and with what terrific denunciations, or charitable consign- 
ments to “‘uncovenanted mercies,” would our temerity be 
rewarded! Yet, as it is, the passage has been made the 
subject of all manner of doubts from the suggestion that 
“presbytery” means the office of presbyter, based on a 
retracted opinion of Calvin’s youth, to the assertion, that 
the passage does not refer to ordination at all! For state- 
ments and refutations we must refer you to more minute 
investigations. We have no difficulties in so plain a case. 

It may be proper to reconcile with this, 2 Tim. i. 6, 
«Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting 
on of my hands.” ‘Timothy was pointed out by inspired 
men—* by prophecy”—to be called and qualified for the 
ministry. For the speedy propagation of the gospel, and 
to supply the want of a complete revelation, men were fre- 
quently clothed with necessary qualifications in a miracu- 
lous manner. - The mode of imparting such was by apos- 
tolic intervention. To this then Paul probably alludes in 
the latter text. He here says the gift was by him. In 
the former its extraordinary origin was indicated by the 
words “by prophecy.” To the fact of Timothy’s posses- 
sing the proper qualifications the presbytery attested. No 
prelatic view of the subject can be consistent with their 
principles. If the two passages teach one es then 

3 1 


i 


26 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


was Timothy a prelate by presbyterian ordination, which 
1s vastly uncanonical, though some Scotch and English 
prelates have been so miserable. If two ordinations are 
supposed, then Timothy was made a presbyter by presby- 
ters, and this is equally monstrum horrendwm /—un- 
available. It is altogether a very hard case for prelatists 
and very clear for presbytery, 

If ‘Timothy was a presbyter, then of course, as a presby- 
ter he might lay hands on others, (1 Tim, vy. 22,) and 
although we have no account of the ordination of Titus, 
yet since he is directed to perform the same duty, we are 
at liberty to suppose it was in the same character. 

In Acts xiii, 1—3, we have an account, which in all its 
circumstances appears to have been a case of ordination, 
It represents three men, by prayer and fasting, with lay- 
ing on hands, setting apart two others, of whose existing 
qualifications and special call, the Holy Ghost gave evi- 
dence. Some thirty or more, Episcopalians, Presbyterians 
and others, contend that this was clearly a case of ordina- 
tion. It serves our purpose, whether it be so regarded or 
not. These men, Saul and Barnabas, were publicly recog- 
nized or set apart by prophets and teachers. It does not 
fully comport with modern ideas of ordination; for the 
grade of the five was the same, for all that we know, since 
‘‘ prophets and teachers’’ is applied to all, But as a case 
of the exercise of a very similar power, it may be taken to 
strengthen our position, otherwise conclusively established, 
that presbyters ordained. 

VII. We close this discussion with a brief notice of some 
positions taken by prelatists, not properly falling within 
the foe of our previous remarks. 

1. « That Timothy, in Ephesus, and Titus, in Crete, 
alone had power to ordain;” in proof of which, several 
unquoted texts are referred to; as 1 Tim. v, 22. 2 Tim. il. 
2. Titus i. 5. This is a very common method of proving 
their positions. The texts cited certainly prove a part of 
the claim, viz: that Timothy and Titus had power to or- 
dain: and this ischeerfully admitted. But that they alone 
had this power, which is the material part of the position, 
1s not so much as inferable from these texts. 

2. That Timothy was ordained bishop of Ephesus, or 
that he was an apostle as some contend. The end of each 
claim, is to ascribe his ordaining power, to his apostolic or 
diocesan-episcopal, and not his presbyterial order. To 
prove r episcopal order, we have the admitted fact of his 

316 


OF PRELACY. 27 


ordination, and 1 Tim. i. 3, “I besought thee to abide at 
Ephesus,” and, (by some,) the subscription at the close of 
the last chapter of the second epistle. But the assumption 
of episcopal ordination is “disproved by the argument 
already offered showing he was ordained a presbyter and 
no more. It cannot be proved, that he was ever in Ephe- 
sus, more than once. When Paul was called into Mace- 
donia, he left Timothy ir Ephesus for a short time, since 
we find he joined Paul before his return to Asia, Acts xx. 
1—4, Paul went over Macedonia and was three months 
in Greece, during which time or before, Timothy came to 
him. After this, Acts xx. 17—28, Paul charges the Ephe- 
sian elders, and does not once allude to this, their superior 
bishop. ‘Timothy otherwise appears to have been his con- 
stant. travelling companion. He is not mentioned nor 
alluded to, in the epistle to the Ephesians, but in those to 
the Philippians, (ii. 19.) 1 Cor. (iv. 17,) and 1 Thess, (iii. 
2,) Paul speaks of sending him to those churches, and 
after all, he may as well be called bishop of either of them, 
as of Ephesus. Paul calls him, “brother,” ‘ minister,” 
«‘ fellow-labourer,” but never “‘ bishop of Ephesus :” speaks 
of his release from imprisonment (Heb. xii. 23,) but never 
of his diocese. As to the subscriptions, no well informed 
scholar assigns them any inspired authority. They were ~ 
appended, no one knows when, where, or by whom. 

«But he was an apostle, for Paul (1 Thess. i. 1,) joins 
him in the salutation, and then ii. 6, says‘ we ..... as 
apostles of Christ.” Granting this will not invest 
Timothy with more than presbyterial order, nor fix him in 
Ephesus. But the whole weight of proof rests in the use 
of the plural personal pronoun. Now (1.) Paul uses this 
for himself in some cases; (see 1 Thess, iii. 4, 5.) (?-) 
And in ii, 2, says, “« We were shamefully treated at Philip- 
pi,’ when (Acts xvi. 10—24,) it appears Timothy was not 
with him. (3.) He (iii. 6,) says, “Timothy came from 
you to us.” If “us” here includes Timothy, then may 
“we” (ii. 6,) also include him. 

That Timothy may have been invested with extraordi- 
nary power as an “evangelist,” (2 Tim. iv. 5,) we have 
no doubt, and that he was the chief or president of the 
presbytery in Ephesus is possible, but no scriptural au- 
thority can be found to prove, that he was either an apostle, 


san bishops.” 1, They may have been parochial bishops, 
2B2 317 


| 5 


28 THE EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS 


if the word “angel” indicates a person. We have no evi 
dence that the word church was used in a collective sense, 
for in the New Testament it is never, elsewhere, so used, 
with an adjunct of locality. “The “ angel of the church of 
Ephesus,” &c. was then in this view, the pastor. 2. If it 
be said, that in such large cities the pastoral care was too 
great for one man, it must be proved that there were seve- 
ral churches organized in cities. We do not know what 
was the precise mode of organizing and governing churches, 
but supposing the difficulty relevant, it may be removed on 
the supposition, that for each city, there were collegiate 
pastors ; to the senior of whom pertained the chief place. 
But this implies no distinction of order or any authority 
over the rest. (3.) If the collective sense of “ church” be 
granted, then we see not why the idea of Stillingfleet and 
others may not be adopted; that “‘ angel” is symbolical of 
the clergy as a body. Especially is this idea worthy of 
attention, since in the addresses, no allusion is made to 
the “inferior clergy.” (4.) It may deserve consideration 
whether the word “angel” or “ messenger” is not suscep- 
tible of literal interpretation, The churches may have sent 
to John, the last surviving apostle, perhaps at his request, 
to receive his parting admonitions, and he, by divine di- 
rection, addressed these epistles to the representative or 
‘¢messenger” of each church, and recorded them for the 
permanent use of the church to which they were really 
addressed through the messenger. This is merely offered 
as a novel mode of explaining what even prelatists have 
not yet settled to their satisfaction. We profess not how- 
ever to speak “ex cathedra.” 

VIII. We here close this discussion of scriptural testi- 
mony on the points involved in the proposition combated 
and that sustained. The testimony of ancient writers to 
facts, of which they were personally cognizant, when 
clearly ascertained, is certainly valuable. We do not fear 
it. Prelatists have challenged us from the days of Hooker 
to the present, to “*show one church not ordered by epis- 
copal regiment, since the times of the apostles.” We are 
prepared to show, that the church of Alexandria, those of 
Gaul, Britain, Ireland, Iona, and others, planted by the 
Culdees, of the Waldenses, (so called, not from Peter 
Waldo, but from locality,) and of the Paulicians, were es- 
sentially Presbyterian, some for a part, and others, for the 
whole period, covered in this boasted challenge. Nay 
more, we retort the challenge, and we defy any man to 

318 


— 


¥v 


SR 


OF PRELACY. 29 
a ‘ 
show us reliable testimony for the existence of a prelatical 
church, before a. p. 200, any where in the whole world. 
In the lists of bishops so triumphantly paraded, a. p. 100, 
is the earliest assigned date, and the interval of one or two 
generations to connect with the apostles, is filled with ‘* pro- 
bablys” and other indications of suppositions. Nor can it 
be shown, that for 150 years after this date, any one 
claimed as a bishop (diocesan) was more than bishop pa- 
rochial. Admitting the genuineness of Ignatius, his quoted 
testimony proves, what we knew before, that bishop, pres- 
byter, and deacon, are names of church officers, but it does 
not prove, they indicated separate orders, nor does he ever 
intimate that such was the fact. 

But we are asked, «if Presbyterian polity is apostolic, 
how can you account for such a change, for the change in 
the use of the term bishop, and the duties of deacon? Does 
not the early and universal prevalence of Episcopacy prove 
its divine origin?” Will prelatists account for the change 
in the use of the Latin word « imperator,” from its desic- 
nation of a general, to that of an emperor? Will they 
account for the change in the spirit and bearing of the 
Episcopal church in this country as indicated by comparing 
the venerable White’s “case of the Episcopal church in 
the United States,” published in 1786, and the various ex- 
hibitions of bishops Hobart, Ravenscroft, Ives, and Doane, 
not to mention some of the “ other clergy” and laity nearer 
home? An ancient writer once admonished bishops that 
they were above presbyters, “ more by the custom of the 
church, tham the true dispensation of Christ.” We can 
show, that the change grew by little and little. Thus it 
was thought desirable in early times to have a visible head, 
or permanent moderator or president, more effectually to 
crush error. From this, aided by a gradual conformity 
of church to state polity, by the naturally paramount in- 
fluence of metropolitan churches and their clergy, by one 
assumption after another, grew up first the prelacy and 
then the papacy. For if a province needed a head, so did 
a state, and so did the world. We are sometimes twitted 
with the want of a head. Where is the head of Episco- 
pacy? Is it the triennial convention of bishops and other 
clergy and laity? Ours is similar. In England, Queen 
Victoria is head of the church. But it was not remem- 
bered, that this human expedient of one personal head, 
might be as efficient to suppress truth as error, of which 
the history of popes, of — VIII., Charles . of Laud, 

19 


30 THE. EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS ’ 


and of Sharpe, affords abundant evidence. From all such 
heads, we say, in the words of the Litany, ‘¢‘ Good Lord, 
deliver us.” 

But we cannot follow prelatists further into this their fa- 
vourite field of discussion. While the testimony of ancient 
writers to facts of their personal knowledge is valuable, 
their traditionary interpretation of scripture is not always 
reliable. Even, however, into this department of testimony, 
we might fearlessly enter. But in the bogs, fens, and quag- 
mires of patristic lore ‘we find no end, in wandering 
mazes lost.” We have no fancy for the miasmatic vapours 
of tradition, while we are permitted to breathe the pure 
atmosphere, and stand on the solid rock of the mountain of 
God’s eternal truth. Some of the fathers were wise and 
good men, and some, especially the latter, were very much 
addicted to nonsense and fable; some very stupid; some 
drugged with the poison of heathen philosophy; some 
drunk with the adulation of the ignorant; and some giddy 
with their elevation after the downfall of heathenism, and 
the unnatural connexion of the church with the state. No! 
we will drink from no stream, muddied with the polluting 
footsteps of man, while we may imbibe the pure water of 
that clear and sparkling fountain, which issues from the 
hill of Zion. We will tread no waste and howling wilder- _ 
ness, traverse no scathed and barren desert, thread no 
thorny labyrinth, and scale no rugged cliffs, while we may 
range the verdant pastures, and repose amidst the refresh- 
ing shades, which are watered by that fountain of heavenly 
truth. Our “faith stands not in the wisdom,” and much 
less, the folly “of men, but in the power of God.” 

IX. We add a few reflections, suggested by this dis- 
cussion. 

1. We here see the proper distinction between prelatic 
and scriptural exclusion. The prelate teaches, that “ ré- 
jection of Episcopacy, rejects men from God and his salva- 
tion :” the scriptures teach, that “ he that believeth not” in 
Jesus Christ ‘shall not see life.” The prelate divides 
mankind into two great classes, those who assent to the 
institutions of «‘ the church” and those who wilfully discard 
them; appointing the one to salvation, the other to perdi- 
tion. The scriptures also recognize two classes, the one, 
included in God’s covenant with his Son, the other “ fore- 
ordained to wrath for their sins.” We may cavil, without 
blasphemy, at the doctrines of the prelate; we must ac- 
quiesce, in humility, with the instructions of God’s reyela- 

320 


OF PRELACY. 31 


tion ; adore, where we cannot understand, and repress each 
rising doubt and discontent by, ‘“‘ Even so Father, for so it 
seemed good in thy sight.” 

2. Their “ Rock is not as our rock,” says a “tract,” not 
of Oxford, nor Rome, nor Burlington, but of “the Episco- 
pal Tract Society,” No. 153. “The great characteristic” 
of prelacy, ‘is reverence for antiquity.” We offer ascon- 
trast, “The great characteristic” of Presbyterianism is 
reverence for scripture. Well may prelatists rely on the 
fathers. Some one undertook to “test Episcopacy by 
scripture” and after conceding the scripture ‘ bishop” was 
only a ‘“ presbyter,” accounts for the scriptural application 
of the term to diocesan bishops, by saying “it was after 
the apostolic age” that this name “was taken from the 
second and appropriated to the first order, as we learn froni 
Theodoret”—and he was a writer of the fifth century. So 
then, “testing by scripture,” for 1700 years and more, 
“the only true churches”—the Episcopal—have imposed 
on the world, by their own confession, a scriptural name, 
and with it, in popular estimation, scriptural auth@rity, for 
an office of human device or at least of such small “ note 
among the apostles,” that they omitted to furnish it with a 
name! What has become of the scriptural name for this 
first order? Why not continue it, as well as the scriptural 
name for the second? Is it so,as Mr. Keble says “ the 
scriptures do homage to tradition ?”” 

3. We thank God, on the other hand, that the evidence 
is so clear, that prelacy stands on tradition, that it hangs 
its destiny on not one text of his word, that he has not 
staked the salvation of millions on the observance of a rite, 
by some apostate or drunken prelate, some vicious, de- 
bauched and ignorant priest of the dark ages... If the whole 
system falls, we are sustained by God’s word. If the ex- 
ternal form of the church be wrecked, we lay hold on the 
anchor of eternal truth. We may be excommunicated by 
Rome, by England, and “ her American daughter,” we are 
not, therefore, cut off from hope, aliens from the body, the 
church of Christ. If Abraham be ignorant of us and Israel 
acknowledge us not, yet “the Lord knoweth them that are 
his.” If “not good enough for prelates,” we are content 
“to be good enough for Christ.” If they deny our ordi- 
nation, we will accept it from Paul. If driven from the 
Episcopal “throne,” blessed be God! we may yet “come 
boldly to a throne” of heavenly grace. If, lacking the 


unity of form, we scandalize prelacy by our “ contain 
1 


te t 


= 


382 THE EXCLUSIVE a, 


for the faith,” we rejoice more in our shame, than ina 
union, cemented by such indifference to truth, that “ with 
a Calvinistic creed, a papal liturgy, and an Arminian 
clergy,” ‘“ the church” opens her doors alike to the highest- 
toned Antinomian and the deepest stained Pelagian. 

4, We may not, Christian reader, tender you fables and 
self-eontradictions of fathers, speculations of schoolmen, 
endless chains of ecclesiastical genealogies, which “ min- 
ister questions,” nor ‘commandments of men,” which 
turn from the truth; but we offer you the ‘* words which 
make wise to salvation,” the doctrines “which minister 
grace to the hearers, “the exceeding great and precious 
promises,” which sustain in the time of tribulation, the con- 
solations of the Spirit, which cheer in the hour of sorrow, 
that hope which is an anchor to the soul, amid the buffet- 
ings of Satan and the whirlpools of temptation, and that 
light which shall illumine, and that rod and staff which 
shall guide and sustain in the dark valley and shadow of 
death. We have no prelatic grace to bestow, no pomp and 
pageantfy of consecrations to excite the romance of reli- 
gion, no costly robes, no crosiers, no mitre, no lawn, no 
vaulted cathedral “to allure to” church, nor crosses to 
“point the way:” no sacramental signs, but those of 
Christ’s institution; but we have “the treasure” of the 
glorious grace of the gospel of God, * borne,” it is true, 
“in earthen vessels,” but so borne, that the “ excellency 
of the power, may be of God and not of man.” Fear not, 
if despised, rejected or persecuted, by the vain talkers, es- 
pecially « them of the” modern “ circumcision :” if in Christ 
Jesus, “‘ neither circumcision” Jewish or prelatic, “ availeth 
any thing, nor uncircumcision.” If in his keeping, no man, 
nor pope, nor prelate can pluck you out of his hands for 
the want of prelatic baptism or confirmation, If God be 
for you, who can be against you? “Neither death, nor 
life, nor angels, nor principalities,” of earth or hell, * nor 
any other creature, shall be able to separate you from the 
love of God which is in Jesus Christ our Lord.” 

5. Fellow sinner! We have invited you, to no contro- 
versial festival between churches; but to the exposure of 
error and defence of truth: the error more dangerous, be- 
cause pleasing to your carnal heart; the truth more un- 
popular, because unadorned with the trappings of human 
device. Believe no scheme, which rests your eternal all 
ie form. Be beguiled by no loud boastful pretensions, 

no insinuating plea, no captivating show. If out of Christ, 

322 
! 


’ ill aut 


OF PRELACY. 33 


it will not save you to have been in “the church.” If out 
of Christ, it matters not, when, where, nor by whom, you 
received the sign and seal of his covenant, or the emblems 
of his body and his blood. If out of Christ, confirmation 
by all the bishops of christendom will not confirm you for 
heaven. If out of Christ, you are without hope, without 
refuge, without God, without holiness, and can never see 
the Lord in peace. 


“Not all the outward forms of earth, 
Wor rites which God has given, 
Nor will of man. nor blood, nor birth, 
Can raise a soul to heaven.” 


Accept then, we beseech you, the offer of mercy through 
Christ Jesus. Come, not to a form, but to Christ; not to 
sacraments, but to Christ ; not to a deacon, priest or bishop, 
but to Christ; not to signs and symbols, but to Christ ; not 
with the sacrifice of service nor the will-worship of forms, 
but with the sacrifice of “a broken spirit, a broken and a 
contrite heart.” Come to Christ, weary and heavy laden, 
and he will give you rest. ‘He is able to save them to 
the uttermost, who come unto God by him.” Come, just 
as you are; come one; come all; come now! 

Behold then our foundation,—God’s word; behold our 
guide,—God’s Spirit ; behold our gospel,—Jesus Christ and 
him crucified, «the power of God, and the wisdom of God 
unto salvation to every one that believeth.” 


3238 


an 


NOTH. 


Sryce preparing the foregoing pages for the press, the Author’s 
attention has been called to an “address by the Rt. Rev. William 
Meade, to the convention of the Episcopal Church of Virginia: 
designed to prove, “The doctrines of the Episcopal church, not 
Romish.” The title of this paper, its expressed purpose and gen- 
eral tenor, indicate the design of its author and indeed his wish 
that it should meet other eyes and ears than Episcopal. Its 
source entitles it to great weight, and for our part we receive it as 
an authoritative document. ‘This is no place to discuss the ques- 
tion how far bishop Meade has succeeded in sustaining his posi- 
tion. We ask the reader’s attention to a few remarks, (suggested 
by a careful perusal of the address) in connexion with those pas- 
sages of this discourse which exhibit the exclusive claims of 
prelacy. 

1. Bishop M. sustains our distinction between the Episcopal 
church as heard by the public in her articles and standard wri- 
ters, and that exclusive system sounded out from Oxford and 
echoed in New York, Burlington and Raleigh. While he yields 
to none in the distinct expression of his preference, he denounces 
those who, “going beyond” and resorting to a “still stronger argu- 
ment” (7?) such as our fathers never used, “ deny other churches 
the name of churches and the right to covenanted mercies.” He 
apologizes for those who attempt to meet such unwarrantable 
claims, and acknowledges that there is now, for the third time, a 
disposition on the part of some of the English clergy to approxi- 
mate, as near as possible, to Rome, in certain doctrines and prac- 
tices. On the other hand he avows his preference for the doc- 
trines and spirit of Scott, Newton, Simeon, and others, as exposi- 
tory of the Episcopal church. 

2. He speaks of the “other churches of the reformation” as 
sister churches, and adds, “for I love to call them such;” of “the 
church of Scotland,” “of France,” “of Belgium,” the “Presbyte-~ 
rian churches” and the “Congregational churches of America.” 
He even so entitles some, which have separated from the English 
church since the Reformation. It may be very impudent, but is 
not surprising that those seeking information on the true position 
of the Episcopal church with regard to others, should on reading 
passages containing such expressions as these, venture such en- 
quiries as the following, to the Rt. Rev. author. 

1. Since bishop Meade knows too well the natural interpretation 
of his using such expressions, to suppose any reader will doubt 
his recognition of the non-Episcopal communions as churches, 


324 34 
' — 


_ NOTE. 35 


does not such recognition require also his recognition of the va- 
lidity of their ministry and sacraments? There can be no church 
without a valid ministry. But bishop Meade knows that he does 
not officially recognize our ordination when he reordains such of 
our ministers as join his church. 

2. He calls ours, sister churches, and yet excludes our ministers 
from ministerial communion in his church. Would he exclude 
Romish priests, supposing them pious men? Yet he writesa 
long address to prevent the supposition that his church is Romish 
—such is his horror of antichrist. Oh consistency! 

3. Appreciating duly his account of the reasons for the “ three 
times” vergency of the Episcopal church to Romanism, we are 
oo fo question his theory. He tells us that it is because 

e Episcopal (English) church has not been called to conflict 
with Rome as others. Now we dare say neither the Scottish, 
Danish, Swedish, or Prussian churches have since the year 1650, 
been even as much brought into conflict with Rome as that of 
England has been called to be, and yet have they not remained 
distinctly Protestant? 

4. While bishop Meade impliedly recognizes the Methodist 
church as one separating from the English since the Reformation, 
how is it that one of his other clergy in an “Inquiry into the 
origin of American Methodism” so clearly avows his disbelief in 
the validity of its ministry, and more than insinuates his denial 
of its claims to be called a church? 


THE END. 


2C : 325 


i ALi plore 
‘Tia " Ss 
“Baa *\, 


> very . a 
‘ fir. - ‘* 
haoyered , 


* 
wh kid 
raid 4 

RAY *y ps 


a | rere 
> po ae 


ee ad 


Date Due 


Uibrary Bureau Cat. no, 1137 


SNICIG WHICH SUC Nas WIrOWn aroubUu Le persom aug ” 
ter of the poorest of her members—she displays all the 
ciples and features of true liberty, whether civil or eccles 
tical. 1, al 

Are not Presbyterians, while grateful to God for ti 
advantages, bound to extend them to all their fellow-men, 
far as God shall give then» ability and opportunity ? 

Yes—it is the unquestionable duty of every member of 
church, to assist her in prosecuting missionary and 
labours in our own land, and throughout the world, un 
the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God, 


wi 


